Hubbard’s dissertations on logic mainly concentrated on data analysis and are missing several essential ingredients, as the following will show. His so-called outpoints are all various modes of inconsistency and/or incompleteness of data.

Logic is the subject of valid reasoning. Valid reasoning must be consistent and complete. The paradigm of valid reasoning is mathematics, which is the only subject which is consistent and complete. Validity needs valid data and valid relationships (connections) between the data.

Consistency demands that the ideas, statements, and arguments should connect logically and not contain contradictions or fallacies. Incoherent or contradictory reasoning destroys its validity. Valid reasoning must also adhere to the principle of sufficient reason (every event or fact must have an explanation or cause).

Completeness requires a set of data which is accurate, relevant, contains sufficient contextual information and should come from reliable sources. Reasoning is built upon premises (data), which are statements or assumptions that serve as the foundation for arguments. If the premises are flawed or unsubstantiated, the reasoning will be invalidated.

Validity needs valid data and valid relationships (conclusions) of the data.

The following is a more detailed list of requirements for valid reasoning:

1. All relevant data should be known (this includes any specifics of time and place).
2. All the data should be true or factual. (including comparisons, assumptions).
3. Data are from the right source. (not CNN)
4. There should be no conflicting data or contradictions in the data.
5. The sequence of events must be correct.
6. The relative importance of the data must be shown.
7. Objectives and actions match the actual purposes of the scene.
8. Correct inferences, coherent lines of reasoning, free from fallacies.

To spot flawed data and erroneous reasoning the following list may be helpful:

Illogics

1. Omitted data (time, place etc.)
2. Irrelevant or incorrectly included data
3. False data (incorrectly assumed differences, similarities or identities)
4. Contrary facts
5. Altered or incorrect sequence of events
6. Altered importance
7. Wrong target / wrong source
8. Fallacious inferences, faulty conclusions

Here is a list of some common logical fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.  Altered importance.
2. Straw Man: Misrepresenting or distorting someone’s argument to make it easier target to attack. Named after the practice of setting up a straw-stuffed scarecrow as a target for archery practice. Wrong target.
3. False Dichotomy: Presenting an argument as if there are only two possible options when, in fact, there are more. Omitted options.
4. Appeal to Ignorance: Arguing that a claim is true because it has not been proven false or vice versa. Faulty conclusions.
5. Circular Reasoning/ begging the question: Using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises, essentially restating the argument without providing new evidence. For example, “I am always right because I never make mistakes”. Faulty conclusions.
6. Slippery Slope: Suggesting that a small action will lead to a chain of events resulting in a drastic and undesirable outcome without sufficient evidence. Faulty conclusions.
7. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a general conclusion from insufficient or biased evidence. Faulty conclusions.
8. Appeal to Authority: Relying on the opinion of an authority figure rather than presenting strong evidence or reasoning. Faulty conclusions.
9. Post hoc Ergo Propter hoc (False Cause): Assuming that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second event. Faulty conclusions.
10. Begging the Question: Assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premises of the argument. Faulty conclusions.
11. Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the main issue being discussed. Added inapplicable data.
12. Appeal to Emotion: Using emotional manipulation to persuade rather than presenting logical evidence. Added inapplicable emotion.
13. Appeal to Tradition: Arguing that something is true or good solely because it has been done or believed for a long time. Added inapplicable data.
14. Fallacy of Composition: Assuming that what is true for one part of something is true for the whole thing. Faulty conclusions.
15. Fallacy of Division: Assuming that what is true for a whole is true for its individual parts. Faulty conclusions.
16. Ownership Inversion Deflection: Taking the opponent’s argument as one’s own, then inverting it and arbitrarily restate things to deflect from the original. Fallacious inference. [first identified by J. E. Postma]

A relay of data on a situation can be analyzed using the above. To evaluate anything, one needs a standard of comparison, an ideal scene if you wish. To spot omitted data one has to have some familiarity or at least an idea of how the whole scene should look like. There is considerably more to proper data evaluation, but the above may already prove very useful.

In this book we will use all of the above to analyze and evaluate the philosophy and rationales of scientology.

[Extract from the soon to be published Vol. II Critique of Pure Scientology]

DIRECTED MOTION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPT POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE- POINT.

Examples: Flying from Moscow to New York, sending an SMS to a friend.

The Scientology Code of Honor is touted to be an ethical code rather than a moral code. Ethics in Scientology is supposed to be rationality. Morals are mere agreements to guarantee the survival of a group. We will analyze the rationality of this code here:

1. “Never desert a comrade in need, in danger or in trouble.”

Standing by one’s friends is generally considered the more honorable and sometimes heroic path. This rule serves to protect a group of two people who are bound by some agreement. The realities of life and living teach us that people can change and a comrade can turn into an enemy as in classic betrayal. The never is an absolute denying the very possibility of exceptions and could easily lead to irrational decisions. There may be situations where not deserting a comrade in danger, will lead to doubling the mortality. What if he went crazy? If the comrade is wounded and close to death and transport ain’t possible, to not desert the comrade maybe suicidal rather than rational.

2. “Never withdraw allegiance once granted.”

Allegiance historically meant the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord and came to mean the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government, as in I pledge allegiance to my country. More generally it means devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause. This rule’s intention is obviously to safeguard the integrity of a group, organization or project.
But what if you came to realize that the organization you have been a member of for years, was not what it appeared to be? People frequently join clubs, political parties, fraternities, and religions without fully knowing what they’re getting into. Oftentimes, these groups’ purposes and policies aren’t made available to new newbies. Change of leadership, takeovers and other developments may necessitate that one abandons such groups.

3. “Never desert a group to which you owe your support.”

One may indeed have solemnly promised to support a particular group forever, but groups change and at some point one may have to ask whether the group is still worthy of support. In the absence of such alertness and regular re-evaluation one can easily get trapped. So, the ‘never’ is contra survival. Besides why would you owe your support? Is it because you signed a contract 15 years ago? The reasonable thing to do is to support a group as long as it is worth supporting. I had signed a Sea Org contract in 1972 and found out much later that that group no longer lived up to its principles as I had understood them, so I quit.

4. “Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power.”

That makes sense. The rule is expressed in the negative, better still would be a positive rule, for example always try to increase your understanding, strength and power.

5. “Never need praise, approval or sympathy.”

This may not be very workable in case you try to get support from others, for a project or enterprise. Let’s say you are an actor like Tom Cruise, you would not be very successful without the ingredients of praise and approval. The same goes for politicians and leaders in general. Especially the ‘never’ makes this an unworkable rule. A better positive rule would be: Always do your projects, so well that they only deserve praise and approval.

6. “Never compromise with your own reality.”

There is no such thing as your ‘own’ reality, things are either real or don’t exist. This is a scientology corruption of the concept of reality. Scientology considers reality, like maya just apparency. See axiom 11.
What is meant here in Scientology is ‘never compromise with your own conception of reality’. This is not very workable either as your conception of reality may be false or incomplete and in need of correction.

7. “Never permit your affinity to be alloyed.”

This is often being violated by Scientologists who disconnect from their children, parents or other family members or friends. I have not heard a word from two of my daughters, over the last 20 years, who disconnected from me, for no other reason than me publicly demanding a reformation of Scientology.
As a rule, it does not work for the very simple reason that affinity (emotion) is for a major part an automatic reaction and is not always under one’s control, thus it is not a matter of permission. I simply cannot help that my affinity for two of my daughters was greatly reduced, when they refused to talk to me.

8. “Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.”

If you are a member of a group or society you better stay in communication with the members of that group, if you wish to survive. Giving and receiving communication has nothing to do with your private desires or preferences. It is part of life; living is exchanging information. Communication is too important to make it dependent on personal desires.
“Children should be seen and not heard.” is the attempt by some parents to enforce this rule on children. If you are in business and a potential customer asks a difficult question you may not desire to answer that, but if you don’t, it is probably to your detriment. You may ignore the alarm bells going off as you do not desire to receive such communications.
When asked by the judge or official for an explanation or asked a question by a police officer you better ignore your desires and answer up. Your neighbor asks for help, you may not desire it but it is usually very pro-survival to extend a little help.
“It is not doing the thing we like to do, but liking the thing we have to do, that makes life blessed.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Such a rule may also be used as a justification to withhold certain data, to not be found out, or to commit any sort of overt of omission. People unable to confront or being emotionally disturbed by certain communications could easily use such a rule to withdraw from certain situations they ought to confront. In short, the rule as stated is unworkable.

9. “Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.”

Many martyrs such as a Giordano Bruno have understood and heroically followed this principle.
A very literal interpretation though can lead to the following: there was a Jewish custom with regard to sandal straps. According to the Talmud, if the gentile authorities were to decree that Jews must change their practice and wear sandal straps like those worn by the gentiles, one would be obligated to give up his life rather than veer from the accepted custom.

10. “Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body.”

True! You and your body are two levels of existence, you in the spiritual and the body in the physical domain.

11. “Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you make your tomorrow.”

Yes! Life is always, now.

12. “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.”

Medical doctors and surgeons should not fear to do their job and neither should anybody else if hurting someone is the reasonable thing to do or the consequence thereof.

13. “Don’t desire to be liked or admired.”

This has nothing to do with honor. See under #5.

14. “Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions.”

Yes, be self-determined. This omits the fact that it might be very helpful to listen to others’ advice and viewpoints.

15. “Be true to your own goals.”

Sure, all within reason.

See also https://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientologys-code-of-honor/

The following is a tentative alternative. A code of honor based on theta=reason:

A Code of Honor – based on reason.

Honor: The state of being ethical, honest, noble, virtuous, and magnanimous; excellence of character; dignity.

Reason: ability to think and make judgments, reason implies self-determination, order and harmony. Rationality.

1.Know that everything happens for a reason.
2.Always try to find the actual reason, however difficult that may be.
3.Always ask why? how? what does it mean? and how do you know?
4.Don’t let your emotions overcome your reason, within reason.
5.Don’t under- or overestimate your own ability, strength or power.
6.Now is the only time you can change something.
7.Be autonomous and true to your own goals.
8.Always keep your information lines open.
9.Dare to state the truth regardless of consequences.
10.Support free speech and insist on the right to criticize unreason.
11.Integrate new information only after understanding.
12.Always aim for the highest level of truth.
13.Always be intolerant towards the intolerance of others.
14.Your self-determination and your honor are more important than your body.
15.Always aim for high quality in your life, achievements and performances.

There was a fatal omission in Hubbard’s organizational policy. What he did was brilliant to create a Department of Correction also known as Qualification. What he missed was establishing a devil’s advocate section. In name there was a product called org correction, but only in name. Missing was innovation and critical examination across the boards. Unlike Queen Elizabeth, Hubbard had no court jester, who could tell him the unsweetened truth and critique. The only one who seemed to have come closest to such a function was Geoffrey Filbert, in the sixties. No one was actively taking an all encompassing active, critical examination of the org, its policies, its tech and its possible corruption, dishonesty. The key word is criticism, criticism in general was frowned upon, being understood as a symptom of withholds and overts. The one missing function was constructive criticism.
If constructive criticism had been institutionalized a scientology dictator like Miscavige would not have been possible.

Perhaps we ought to use the word critique rather than criticism in the context of this essay.

Critique is a method of disciplined, systematic study of a written or oral discourse. Although critique is commonly understood as fault finding and negative judgment,^[1] it can also involve merit recognition, and in the philosophical tradition it also means a methodical practice of doubt.^[1] The contemporary sense of critique has been largely influenced by the Enlightenment critique of prejudice and authority, which championed the emancipation and autonomy from religious and political authorities.^[1]

The term critique derives, via French, from Ancient Greek κριτική (kritikē), meaning “the faculty of judgment”, that is, discerning the value of persons or things.^[2] – Wikipedia

Org correction and evaluations were based on existing policies and primary assumptions and would never bow to examine and systematically question basic beliefs. If we start from a basic such as THETA which is REASON then it would be quite reasonable to subject and scrutinize anything at all by the use of reason. Others have realized the importance of criticism:

Internal criticism

A threat rather than a resource: why voicing internal criticism is difficult in international organizations Ben ChristianJournal of International Relations and Development (2021)

“…internal criticism is ambivalent—it can be both a resource and a threat to IOs. Its suppression or avoidance may thus not only be dysfunctional for the organisation (impeding organisational learning processes) but also functional (protecting external reputation and preserving internal stability).

“One thing is clear: voicing internal criticism is demanding and challenging—and must therefore be organised. Brave ‘exceptional individuals’ (Autesserre 2014: 43) are undoubtedly important, but their influence remains limited so long as they are lone warriors. Thus, leadership, senior managers, and rank-and-file employees must work together to actively create conditions that encourage the expression of internal criticism—both in terms of the general criticism culture and with regard to innovative structures and formats.“

Link to article https://rdcu.be/cBodIhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41268-021-00244-w

Constructive criticism is like free speech a requirement for a healthy organization, society or group. Thus organizations should establish and add to the org boards, criticism and innovation sections in the correction department. The purpose of the criticism section is to assume the worst about the organization and to do everything, to expose corruption, incompetence and malpractice. But it should not even be limited to that, it should be free to question and doubt anything in particular basic assumptions. In HCOB of 9 June 1960 THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENTOLOGY VERSUS OVERTS LRH freely criticizes some of the basic assumptions of physics, Freudian psychology and psychiatry and shows pride in the fact that scientology at least has inspected its own assumption points.

To understand how the artist felt, however, is not criticism; criticism is an investigation of what the work is good for. … Criticism … is a serious and public function; it shows the race assimilating the individual, dividing the immortal from the mortal part of a soul. [George Santayana, “The Life of Reason,” 1906]

One of the reasons this type of criticism was never encouraged or further developed in scientology is that disagreements and pointing out contradictions in Hubbard’s writings, policies or thoughts were frowned upon and generally considered symptoms of misunderstanding or even misunderstood words.

Dialectics

Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue; German: Dialektik), also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation.

Dialectics and critique are related in the sense that both are exposing different if not opposite viewpoints on a subject. My ‘Critique of Pure Scientology’ provides many a dialectical response to several of Hubbard’s pronunciamentos, assumptions and axioms.

Hubbard states that ‘man is basically good’ as the antithesis to Freud’s view of man as innately evil (Homo Homini Lupus (man is a wolf to man)). A synthesis would be that man is innately neither good nor evil but intent on increasing hers power which can be done in good or evil ways.

Hubbard proudly announces his 1970 breakthrough in logic:

“I have found a way now to unlock this subject [logic]. This is a breakthrough which is no small win. If by it a formidable and almost impossible subject can be reduced to simplicity, then correct answers to situations can be far more frequent and an organization or a civilization far more effective.

“The breakthrough is a simple one.

“BY ESTABLISHING THE WAYS IN WHICH THINGS BECOME ILLOGICAL, ONE CAN THEN ESTABLISH WHAT IS LOGIC.

“In other words, if one has a grasp of what makes things illogical or irrational (or crazy, if you please) it is then possible to conceive of what makes things logical.”

What he must have overlooked though is the fact that to establish the ways in which things become illogical, one must have established already what is logical.

“The ability to perceive the world around one and the ability to draw accurate conclusions about it are, to all intents, the same thing.

“Glasses are a symptom of the decline of consciousness.” Hubbard, NSOL, 75/76

This is empiricism pure and invalidates the very essence of consciousness which is to be self aware and being self aware one has meta-perception and can think things over and evaluate. Evaluation is not part of perception. Drawing conclusions are processes of logic and reason, not perception.

Same with glasses they have nothing to do with consciousness. All these professors with glasses do not in the least suffer from lack of consciousness. Hubbard confuses awareness or sentience with consciousness as has been pointed out already.

See https://xscn.mgtconcepts.com/?p=470